Over at the FromPyrgos blog the other day, I read a new post that was so illogical that I screen saved the whole thing, because I suspect Mr. Ross, the author, will either edit or delete it soon. And if he does, and apologizes to his readers, I would commend him. In an earlier post, he intimated that someone called him a “catastrophizing asshole,” which, to my knowledge, nobody ever did. I remember pointing out that spending an extra $20 to $40 on a 100 ml bottle of Kouros is not something one should “catastrophize” about, or something to that effect, but of course that is quite different from using obscenities to refer to a fellow human being.

In this new post, Mr. Ross tells us that “sticky threads” about certain scents (presumably about sites like Basenotes.net, which he apparently refuses to ever mention again, as if it possesses some sort of magic) are “pointless.” He then proceeds to demonstrate exactly why they are important! Can someone be this illogical, or is this a sign of something more serious? I’m not trying to be a “concern troll” here, but after reading all kinds of bizarre claims on his blog, I don’t know what to make of this one. It may be that he needs to “step back” and consider that these olfactory concoctions are only a part of one’s life. One should not view a disagreement about these things as some sort of “life and death struggle.”

Before I get to the crux of the issue here, I’ll mention the context. Mr. Ross purchased a new Green Irish Tweed bottle and the sprayer and pump were a little different from recent bottles. He proceeds to claim that he knows it is authentic by the smell, even though he recently called people who have worn scents for years or who study scents in great detail non-“astute” noses. What are the qualifications for his “nose?” How does he know he is correct? Why is it that when someone makes the same claim, that person is dismissed as some sort of fool whereas we are to believe that his similar if not identical claims are accurate? Why don’t these kinds of questions ever seem to cross his mind? By contrast, I’ve pointed out that it seems as though perception can vary quite a bit if one sprays on a lot and focuses mainly on top notes, whereas I spray as little as possible and try to largely avoid top notes.

Perhaps most disturbing is this claim: “Given that GIT ages in the bottle, and that my grey market bottle has obviously been opened for atomizer refitting…” This sounds like outright paranoia to me, but the saddest thing is that if he would just read relevant Basenotes’ threads, he would come across ones like the March 20, 2014 post about this very issue! And where is it located? In a sticky thread about a Creed scent (www.basenotes.net/threads/371106-Creed-Queries-is-my-bottle-genuine-etc/page7)! Later on March 20, someone responded and pointed out that this is the new sprayer Creed is using. But the idea that someone would break open a Creed bottle, replace the liquid (or not, for some reason), and then attach a new pump and sprayer is something I’d expect the Mel Gibson character from the “Conspiracy Theory” movie to say (if scents were a hobby of his) !

Why would someone buy a real bottle and take the liquid out (or not) and resell it? You would need a market for that liquid, and that would show up on the decant sites, probably as a “great deal” on the scents in question. As Mr. Ross knows, there are plenty of fake GIT bottles on the market, which means there is machinery being used to make them. Buying real bottles when you can just make your own (or, presumably, buy them from the faker at wholesale) for perhaps a few dollars would be ridiculous, but this appears not to have entered Mr. Ross’ mind for some reason! Moreover, I have tried to take apart a sealed atomizer bottle (of Francesco Smalto Pour Homme) because the pump wasn’t working but there was a little bit of liquid remaining (and I hadn’t worn it in many years). I didn’t want to buy a bottle “blind” so I wanted to open it up and trickle the small amount remaining onto my skin.

Guess what? It broke and there was glass everywhere, including many tiny shards. In any case, I want to conclude with a simple point here. You can’t state your opinion as a fact and then say that the opinions of others are to be dismissed as irrelevant. In this case, he made himself look foolish on multiple levels, demonstrating the opposite of what he claimed. And all he had to do was to contact Creed and ask them about the new spray cap (or have a little patience and read Basenotes)! He made some other claims, such as that different application techniques might cause a difference in perception, but that is what I (and others) have been saying for a long time now. Perhaps if he puts his “sour grapes” aside and gets back to reading the information available at sites like Basenotes he would be less likely to write up such posts, but then again, I do fear that this may be an indication of a serious underlying condition! If one is a “catastrophizer,” wouldn’t it be best to admit it and figure out how to stop doing it in the future, rather than to deny it?